Bravo Microbiome Restoration System

Bravo Microbiome Restoration System The Bravo Microbiome Restoration System represents the pinnacle of Swiss-led innovation in the field of human microbiome modulation and biological restoration.

Multi-strain probiotics, gut-brain axis, and tau protein: A summary of a recent clinical studyIn August of this year, a ...
01/09/2026

Multi-strain probiotics, gut-brain axis, and tau protein: A summary of a recent clinical study

In August of this year, a few days ago, a clinical study conducted in Korea on elderly people with mild impairment of memory and orientation, that is, with initial cognitive impairment, was published in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease.

The aim was simple: to understand whether a supplement of multiple "friendly" bacteria (a multi-strain probiotic) could influence certain biological signals of Alzheimer's disease and certain mental abilities.

The study was conducted in a "double-blind" manner: neither the participants nor the doctors knew who received the probiotic and who received a placebo. Duration: 24 weeks. In the end, 87 participants were analyzed: 40 in the probiotic group and 47 in the placebo group.

In addition to tests of memory and visuospatial abilities (that is, the ability to copy figures, to "see" space, and to remember a figure after copying it), the researchers measured three signals in the blood:

pTau181: a fragment of modified tau protein. When tau protein becomes "damaged" and accumulates in neurons, it is one of the typical processes of Alzheimer's.

GFAP: a signal of activation of brain support cells (astrocytes), linked to inflammation.

NfL: a fragment of "filaments" of neurons that increases when nerve cells are damaged.

The underlying idea resides in the concept of the gut-brain axis (or, as the authors write, also of the oral-immune-brain axis): bacteria of the mouth and gut talk with the immune system and, through chemical and inflammatory messages, can influence the brain.

In the group taking the probiotic, the level of pTau181 in the blood significantly decreased compared to placebo. GFAP and NfL, instead of rising as in the placebo group, remained stable.

Clinically, the global severity score (CDR) improved, especially in memory. In particular, people in the probiotic group performed better in visuospatial tasks (copying a complex figure) and better retained the visual memory of the figure, whereas in the placebo group that memory worsened.

The study therefore demonstrates a significant positive effect: fewer signals of tau pathology and neuronal inflammation/damage, and better preservation of certain visuospatial functions.

The message is concrete. It is not just about "good bacteria for the gut." A set of microbial strains, taken for several months, modified markers in the blood that are used today to track Alzheimer's disease and protected specific cognitive functions.

This reinforces the idea that microbial biodiversity—that is, having many different types of useful bacteria, and not just a few strains, even if present in billions of copies—may be a way to act upstream, on inflammation and on communication between the gut (or oral cavity) and the brain.

Where Bravo fits in: Bravo is a fermented symbiont based on colostrum or h**p seed proteins, with a rich microbial community, the richest in the world and not reduced to a few strains as in other commercially available probiotics. In addition to bacteria (in particular bifidobacteria and other symbionts), it contains phages (friendly viruses that kill disease-causing bacteria) and plasmids (small pieces of mobile DNA).

This combination makes Bravo a complete ecosystem. Biodiversity, phages, and plasmids promote an exceptionally stable equilibrium, help contain unwanted bacteria, and exchange useful genetic information among microorganisms.

The Korean study shows that a multi-strain preparation, even if simpler than Bravo, is already able to modulate tau protein pathology and preserve important cognitive functions.

Bravo can therefore be interpreted within the same framework, and indeed within a broader framework: not just "adding bacteria," but providing a complex microbial environment, with phages and plasmids, that acts on the microbiota-immunity-brain axis.

The rationale for using Bravo in these contexts is consistent with what this trial has just made visible in people with early cognitive impairment.

Reference: Seo EH et al. Multistrain probiotics modulate tau pathology and preserve visuospatial cognition in early cognitive impairment: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Alzheimers Dis. 2026. PMID: 42663491. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42663491/

Alzheimer's Association

24/08/2026

1981 → 2026: The E1/E2 Paradox — Trillions Spent, Yet the Tropical Food System Remains Functionally Fragile

Hello to everyone,

I am Marco Ruggiero and today I am not going to talk about Bravo, even though fermented foods remain an essential part of a healthy diet.

Instead, I would like to share with you a study I carried out more than forty years ago, when I was a young researcher, and which has become more relevant than ever.

In 1981, together with Professor Carlo Nicastro, I published a paper on the food situation in tropical countries. At that time, roughly half the world’s population was undernourished.

In many tropical regions, child mortality linked to malnutrition was extremely high. People were living mainly on cereals and starchy foods that did not provide enough high-quality protein. We tried to understand why agricultural production remained so low in places that often had abundant sunlight and, in theory, good growing conditions.

We used a simple idea that still helps us today. We distinguished between two kinds of energy that plants need.

Primary Energy is what nature provides for free: sunlight, temperature, and rainfall. Secondary Energy is what human beings add: irrigation, fertilizers, and machinery.

In tropical countries, Primary Energy was often plentiful, but Secondary Energy was scarce and expensive. Without enough of these human inputs, farms stayed low-yielding. We also warned that slash-and-burn practices were damaging the soil and that traditional local crop varieties were being replaced by a small number of high-yielding ones, creating long-term risks.

Forty-five years later, some things have clearly improved. The percentage of the world’s population suffering from chronic hunger has fallen dramatically — from about half in the early 1980s to under 8 percent today.

Child mortality has also decreased substantially thanks to better health care and nutrition programmes. We now have better tools: crop varieties that tolerate drought and heat, improved storage methods that reduce post-harvest losses, and even precision agriculture and artificial intelligence that can help manage water and fertilizer more efficiently.

Yet other problems have become more difficult. The absolute number of hungry people in Africa has continued to rise because the population has grown so rapidly. Africa now has more undernourished people than any other continent.

Climate change has made Primary Energy less reliable. Higher temperatures and irregular rainfall are undoing some of the gains we achieved with better Secondary Energy inputs.

The cost of fertilizers, fuel, and machinery has become more volatile because of global political and economic shocks. At the same time, many small farmers still cannot access new digital tools because they lack electricity, internet, or training — a modern version of the old problem that technology was simply “too expensive.”

Two deeper issues we pointed out in 1981 have also grown more serious. Land degradation continues, and the loss of crop diversity has increased the risk that a single disease or extreme weather event could cause widespread damage. Over the decades, trillions of dollars have been spent on development aid and agricultural programmes. Yet the basic structural constraints remain largely in place.

What has stayed essentially the same is the core diagnosis. Diets in many tropical regions are still heavily based on cereals that do not supply complete proteins, so “hidden hunger” — deficiencies of vitamins and essential amino acids — continues. Secondary Energy inputs are still used far less than they should be in the places that need them most. And without reliable access to those inputs, and without protecting the natural base of soil and climate, any progress remains fragile.

The key lesson is this: having more technology or more money is not enough. What matters is whether people can actually use those resources when the weather turns against them. Two farming systems can have similar amounts of fertilizer or irrigation equipment, yet one may still collapse under stress while the other adapts. The difference lies in accessibility and resilience — the ability to keep responding when Primary Energy becomes unstable.

I share this today because it shows that serious work on nutrition and food systems is not something improvised. It comes from decades of research, observation, and continuous comparison between what we knew then and what we see now. Seen in this context, I can say that Bravo is the results of more than forty years of research in the field of nutrition.

The questions we asked in 1981 are still with us. The challenge is no longer just to increase production. It is to build systems that remain workable under real climatic and economic pressure — systems that give ordinary farmers fair and reliable access to the tools they need, protect the soil and the genetic diversity of crops, and turn knowledge into lasting practice.

That is the real work still ahead.

I thank you for your time and attention and, as usual, I remain at your service for any further information I may be able to provide. Just send us an email.

For further reading: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202511.0993



World Health Organization (WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Bill Gates Fulvia Gianetta Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità alimentare e delle Foreste UNICEF

17/08/2026

Buongiorno, Good morning or good afternoon, you decide.

I am Marco Ruggiero and today I want to talk to you about the ketogenic diet — or nutritional ketosis — but from a completely different perspective from the one most people know.

Let’s start far back, in 1989.

The so-called Warburg effect had already been known for a long time: cancer cells can use only sugar as an energy source, unlike healthy cells, which can also use ketone bodies — which, by the way, are denser in energy.

In our laboratory of molecular biology, however, we discovered that sugar — glucose — does something far worse than simply feeding cancer cells.

We found that glucose is converted into a molecule called diacylglycerol, which in turn activates an enzyme called protein kinase C. This is the very same enzyme that is activated by the chemical substances that promote tumor growth.

Another step back: for cancer to take hold, grow, and form metastases, two events must occur in a precise sequence.

The first is a DNA mutation, which must then necessarily be followed by the action of a tumor promoter.

DNA mutations are caused by an endless variety of factors — chemical substances (such as to***co smoke, atmospheric pollutants, and so on), radiation, and even intrinsic errors in the biology of DNA. They happen every day, no matter how careful we are. In most cases they are repaired automatically. Even when they are not repaired, by themselves they do not cause cancer. Statistically, at any given moment we all have cells carrying mutations in our body. This is not a problem… unless a tumor promoter acts on a mutated cell.

In fact, cancer establishes itself only when a tumor promoter acts on a cell that has already undergone a mutation. Tumor promoters themselves are many and of different natures, yet they all act through a single mechanism: the activation of that enzyme I mentioned earlier — protein kinase C.

So, what we discovered in our laboratory is that when sugar is given to a cell that has already suffered a mutation, it does not merely provide energy — something that was already well known — but, far more importantly and far more dangerously, it is transformed into a molecule that functions as a tumor promoter. And worse still, it is a tumor promoter produced inside the mutated cell itself.

And if that were not enough, activation of this enzyme — protein kinase C — makes tumor cells resistant to anti-neoplastic therapies such as radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

In practice, in 1989 we discovered that the ketogenic diet plays a fundamental role in an integrated nutritional approach to cancer therapy, not so much because it deprives cancer cells of their main energy source, but because it reduces or eliminates the formation of an endogenous tumor promoter that, among other things, also causes resistance to therapy.

Our 1989 work was published in a specialized journal, but the zeitgeist — the spirit of the time — was not yet ready, and its results were appreciated and shared by only a few specialists.

Today, however, the time is right. The role of the ketogenic diet in the approach to cancer and to many other conditions is accepted and shared by the scientific community. And in these very days a scientific article of mine is about to be published that revisits those discoveries — discoveries we could call prescient — in the light of current knowledge.

In this context, our nutritional approach with the Bravo products, all of which are fully compatible with a ketogenic diet, fits perfectly as an indispensable complement: it supports the intestinal barrier, reduces systemic inflammation, fosters a balanced microbiome, and improves the metabolic and immune tolerance of ketosis, thereby transforming carbohydrate restriction from simple energy deprivation into an integrated strategy of oncological support.

Thank you all for your attention. As always, I remain at your disposal for any questions or curiosities you may have. Just send me an email and I will reply promptly.



Fulvia Gianetta

10/08/2026

Good morning / Good afternoon.

Today, we want to share with you a very recent scientific paper that we believe is important for everyone who uses Bravo.

In January 2026 a research group published a study in the journal Nutritional Neuroscience. They used a special mouse model that develops spontaneous intestinal inflammation — very similar to what we see in many people with gut problems. These animals lack a key anti-inflammatory molecule called Interleukin-10.

The researchers gave half of these animals regular milk kefir. After the treatment they looked at both the gut and the brain.

What they found is remarkably clear:

First, the gut looked much healthier. The tissue architecture improved significantly.

Second, in the brain itself they measured higher levels of short-chain fatty acids — the beneficial compounds that our good bacteria produce. These molecules are known to support brain function and calm inflammation.

Third, markers of oxidative stress in the brain went down. In simple terms, there was less oxidation “rusting” of the brain tissue.

Fourth, a protein that helps keep the blood-brain barrier tight — called occludin — increased. This means the protective barrier between the blood and the brain became stronger.

In other words, a fermented milk product was able to improve both the gut and the brain at the same time. This is exactly what we call a psychobiotic effect: a beneficial influence on the mind and brain that starts in the gut.

Now, why does this matter for Bravo?

Bravo contains the complete living microbial spectrum of traditional kefir — the same family of microbes that produced these results — plus the additional power of fermented colostrum and GcMAF activity.

So when the science shows that kefir can protect the gut barrier, raise beneficial brain metabolites, reduce oxidative stress, and support the blood-brain barrier, it directly supports what many of you already experience with Bravo: better digestion, better energy, clearer thinking, and a greater sense of well-being.

This study does not replace clinical experience, of course. But it adds a solid piece of very recent scientific evidence that the living microbial community we use every day is capable of talking to both the gut and the brain in a constructive way.

That is why we continue to recommend Bravo with confidence — not only for the gut, but for the gut-brain connection that influences how we feel and how we function every day.

Thank you. Send us an email and we shall be happy to answer any questions.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41612608/

1980 → 2026: The Mycotoxin Problem We Already Knew — and Still Haven’t SolvedIn 1980, together with Carlo Nicastro, Marc...
05/08/2026

1980 → 2026: The Mycotoxin Problem We Already Knew — and Still Haven’t Solved

In 1980, together with Carlo Nicastro, Marco Ruggiero published a review on mycotoxins in tropical countries (Ruggiero M, Nicastro C. Il problema delle micotossine nei paesi tropicali. Rivista di Agricoltura Subtropicale e Tropicale 1980;74:221-235).

They described secondary metabolites produced under stress (temperature 20–35 °C optimal for aflatoxin B₁, RH ≥ 80–85 %, aerobic conditions), the devastating hepatic consequences in poor tropical regions, the agronomic failures that forced people to eat contaminated food, and the urgent need for genuine collaboration between physicians, agronomists and animal scientists.

Forty-six years later the picture is both better and worse — in a way that should make us pause.

What has improved

• Detection methods and regulations are vastly more sophisticated. EU limits for aflatoxin B₁ now range from 2–12 µg/kg (total aflatoxins 4–15 µg/kg) depending on the commodity — far stricter than the 50 ppb many countries accepted in 1980.

• Biocontrol works. Atoxigenic Aspergillus flavus strains (Aflasafe and similar products) routinely reduce field contamination by 70–99 % in maize and groundnuts across Africa.

• Hermetic storage (PICS bags, metal silos) and better drying technologies are available and, where adopted, dramatically cut post-harvest toxin formation.

What has worsened

Climate change has turned the environmental conditions they flagged in 1980 into a moving target. Higher temperatures, drought–flood sequences and elevated CO₂ favour A. flavus more aggressively than before. Contamination is no longer confined to the classic tropical belt; southern Europe is seeing rising aflatoxin risk in maize. Global surveys (including the 2025 DSM-Firmenich World Mycotoxin Survey of >141,000 samples) show that 83 % of samples worldwide contain at least one mycotoxin above risk thresholds. In parts of sub-Saharan Africa, 87–93 % of maize and groundnut samples still test positive, often at levels hundreds of times above any safety limit.

What has remained essentially the same

The fundamental biology has not changed. Mycotoxins are still secondary metabolites produced when the fungus is stressed. Poor post-harvest handling and lack of infrastructure in low-resource tropical settings still force people to consume contaminated staples. And the interdisciplinary collaboration they called for in 1980 is still more aspiration than daily practice.

The 1980 paper was not a prediction of the future. It was a description of a present that, in the most vulnerable regions, has simply refused to become the past.

Science has given us tools that did not exist then. Climate and poverty have given the fungi better conditions than ever. The gap between what we know and what we implement remains the real toxin.

Bill Gates World Health Organization (WHO) UNICEF Ministero dell’Agricoltura, della Sovranità alimentare e delle Foreste Ministero della Salute


30/07/2026

Good morning / Good afternoon.

Today I would like to share with you some important recent findings on the relationship between the gut microbiome and depression, based on a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis.

As many of you know, depression is no longer viewed solely as a disorder of the brain. There is growing recognition that it is intimately connected to the gut–brain axis. An imbalance in the communities of bacteria that live in our intestine can influence mood, inflammation, and mental health more broadly.

The slide you see summarizes the key results of a recent and rigorous piece of research. The authors, Anjum and colleagues, published in July 2026 in the journal Nutritional Neuroscience a systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials. These trials tested the effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and postbiotics on depressive symptoms.

I want to pause here and emphasize something that is easy to overlook, yet absolutely central to the value of this work.

This is not a single clinical study. It is a meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis is a statistical method that combines the results of many independent, high-quality studies into one overall analysis. Instead of looking at the results of one trial — which may be small, limited to a particular population, or influenced by chance — a meta-analysis pools data from multiple trials. This gives the findings much greater statistical power, greater reliability, and greater generalizability than any individual study can provide on its own.

In other words, when a single trial reports a positive result, we must always ask: Is this finding robust, or could it be a false positive? When a well-conducted meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials reaches a consistent conclusion, the level of evidence is substantially higher.

That is why the scientific community generally regards a high-quality meta-analysis as stronger evidence than any single paper, no matter how well that single paper is designed.

So what did this meta-analysis actually find?

The clearest signal concerned probiotics. When probiotics were taken for longer than 12 weeks, there was a meaningful improvement in depressive symptoms. In contrast, shorter courses — those lasting less than 12 weeks — did not produce clear benefits.

This duration effect is important. It suggests that supporting the gut microbiome is not a quick fix. Consistent, longer-term intervention appears necessary to observe clinically relevant changes in mood.

The practical takeaway is straightforward. Supporting a diverse and balanced gut microbiome over time appears to be important for mental wellness. Formulations that deliver a wide range of beneficial microorganisms may be especially useful when used consistently for several months.

In this context, multi-strain probiotic preparations with high microbial biodiversity — such as the fermented colostrum or h**p-seed matrix known as Bravo — are well positioned as useful long-term nutritional supports for the gut–brain axis.

To summarize: the gut and the brain communicate continuously. An imbalance in gut bacteria can influence mood.

A large 2026 meta-analysis of 27 randomized trials shows that probiotics, when taken for more than 12 weeks, can meaningfully reduce depressive symptoms. And the fact that this conclusion comes from a meta-analysis, rather than from any single study, gives us greater confidence in the finding.

Thank you.

27/07/2026

Today I want to present a brand-new scientific paper published just a few days ago in the prestigious journal Science. This work opens new perspectives and new potential indications related to the anti-aging properties of Bravo products.

The study shows that a specific type of molecules called prostaglandins can prevent the body’s own clean-up cells — the tissue-resident macrophages — from clearing out toxic, aging neutrophils. When these old neutrophils are not removed properly, they release DNA nets and inflammatory signals that damage surrounding tissues and accelerate aging across many organs: the brain, heart, muscles, liver, and more.

Let’s look at the core mechanism in simple terms.

Normally, tissue-resident macrophages act as the body’s housekeeping cells. They clear senescent (old and damaged) neutrophils through a process called clearance of dead cells. This prevents the neutrophils from becoming toxic.

With aging, however, levels of prostaglandins rise. These prostaglandins keep signaling on the macrophages, which leads to an increase in a molecule called cAMP and activation of an enzyme called protein kinase A. The result is that the macrophages turn down the production of special surface proteins called integrins.

Integrins are the mechanical bottleneck. The prostaglandin signal does not kill the macrophages. Instead, it turns off or reduces the very tools — the integrins — that macrophages need to “eat” the old neutrophils. Without these tools working properly, the clean-up process fails. Toxic neutrophils accumulate, release DNA nets, and speed up organ aging.

The researchers proved this in several important ways. When they genetically removed the prostaglandin signal specifically from the tissue-resident macrophages of old mice, the animals regained youthful clearance of neutrophils and preserved the energy-producing capacity of their mitochondria.

When they used a drug to block the same pathway for two months in old mice, the burden of senescent neutrophils dropped back toward youthful levels.

The benefits included better cognition, less frailty, less muscle loss, healthier body composition, improved heart function, and lower systemic inflammation.

Importantly, the same pattern of elevated prostaglandin signaling and accumulated senescent neutrophils was also seen in aged and diseased human tissues.

So what does this have to do with GcMAF and Bravo?

GcMAF is a potent, naturally occurring macrophage-activating factor. In the context of Bravo, this activity is generated during the fermentation of colostrum or h**p seed proteins. We already know from many studies that GcMAF strongly enhances the ability of macrophages to engulf and clear material. It can support both defensive and resolution-oriented programs in macrophages, helps clear debris, reduces chronic inflammation, and improves the metabolic fitness of macrophages.

This is why GcMAF is particularly interesting in relation to the new recently published findings.

The aging problem identified in the paper targets exactly the same cells (tissue-resident macrophages) and the same process (clearance of dead cells / phagocytosis) that GcMAF potently activates.

By boosting the overall phagocytic machinery and the integrin-dependent engulfment capacity of macrophages, GcMAF may help compensate for the repression caused by prostaglandins.

It may also favor a resolution-competent state in these macrophages, making them more efficient at clearing senescent cells, and it may help lower the chronic inflammatory tone that drives prostaglandin production with age.

Our working hypothesis is therefore straightforward: GcMAF, or the GcMAF activity present in Bravo, may restore the ability of tissue-resident macrophages to clear senescent neutrophils, thereby interrupting one important driver of multi-organ aging.

The biological convergence is striking: the paper published in Science identifies a clear molecular obstacle in the very cells and processes that Bravo is designed to support. This opens a new and scientifically grounded perspective on the potential anti-aging applications of these products.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to following the next experimental steps in this exciting area of research.



Fulvia Gianetta

Probiotics and Depression: Key findings from a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled tria...
24/07/2026

Probiotics and Depression: Key findings from a 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials.

13/07/2026

Mytochondrial dysfunction in aging and chronic conditions: the role of carnitine.

Adresse

Arzo

Webseite

Benachrichtigungen

Lassen Sie sich von uns eine E-Mail senden und seien Sie der erste der Neuigkeiten und Aktionen von Bravo Microbiome Restoration System erfährt. Ihre E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht für andere Zwecke verwendet und Sie können sich jederzeit abmelden.

Verknüpfungen

Teilen

Kategorie